Carryfast:
To be fair my old Dad had already taught me that ( reliable ) BMEP in a motor is king even before that point in time and he would have told that young upstart Bewick same. 
In which case 240 Gardner at around 50 lb/ft per litre being a boat anchor,compared to 280 Rolls at least,at around 70 lb/ft per litre +,stands.In addition to it obviously not needing a load of extra engine stuck out the back of the cab. 
Was there ever a 280RR, I can only think of the the 220,265 & 290 from the era in discusion, More importantly what was the torque from each of the engines you are comparing & also what was the average MPG of each engine?
It was rated as 280 in scammell units ,I know this as I have some brochures.
Punchy Dan:
It was rated as 280 in scammell units ,I know this as I have some brochures.
Thanks for the info, I never really had much to do with Scammels as it was mostly Seddons, SA & ERFs I was involved with, which always seemed to have the engines that I listed if fitted with RR diesels.
dave docwra:
Carryfast:
To be fair my old Dad had already taught me that ( reliable ) BMEP in a motor is king even before that point in time and he would have told that young upstart Bewick same.
In which case 240 Gardner at around 50 lb/ft per litre being a boat anchor,compared to 280 Rolls at least,at around 70 lb/ft per litre +,stands.In addition to it obviously not needing a load of extra engine stuck out the back of the cab.
Was there ever a 280RR, I can only think of the the 220,265 & 290 from the era in discusion, More importantly what was the torque from each of the engines you are comparing & also what was the average MPG of each engine?
Did you see this in the previous posts ?.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … el-engines
On the basis that the mk 111 280 was just a de rated/speeded 305,the peak torque would have been the same more than 800 lb/ft from 12.1 litres.As I said providing the 8 LXB’s peak power,produced at 1,850 rpm,at around 1,500 rpm.On that note assuming the claimed 8 mpg + just how much better on fuel did it need to be also bearing in mind the improved journey time potential.
As for 265 etc from memory they were late 1970’s 1980’s.With the 265 certainly being fitted in the early 1980’s Foden gritters I drove and in that at least living up to its name in every way being a great truck to drive.
We had 1980 registered Fodens with the Rolls 265 engine, they were less economical than our Gardners but a lot more ‘go’ about them of course. Then from B reg onwards we had 265 Li’ Rollers and they were better on fuel than the 265’s. My one only ran at 1950 rpm which was the same as our Gardner LXC’s (it was cut down by Fodens under warranty from 2100 rpm so was a gear down on hills compared to our other Rollers) but I reckon it used more fuel as I spent longer in lower gears, probably around the 7mpg mark on a longish run, but most of our work was in hilly areas plus a lot of idling on surfacing jobs (or blowing time with tankers) so it was hard to tell and I don’t think anyone actually bothered checking consumptions anyway. I couldn’t do Ashbourne to St Clears and back on a tankfull, I took 5 gallons in a barrel with me, but with a Gardner I couldn’t have done it in my ten hours anyway! The Gardner engine came into its own around the 1200 rpm region, on a bank it would hang in at those revs quite happily at around 10 mph whereas with the Rolls you just blasted your way up and got to the top a lot quicker! The Rollers were far more reliable as well.
Pete.
windrush:
The Gardner engine came into its own around the 1200 rpm region, on a bank it would hang in at those revs quite happily at around 10 mph whereas with the Rolls you just blasted your way up and got to the top a lot quicker! The Rollers were far more reliable as well.
Pete.
Hanging on at all of 10 mph. With the 180 at least seeming to go into reverse on sight of just the very average motorway climbs between Feltham and Kilworth that probably running at less than 32 t gross.That combined with the laughable speed on the flat meaning it could only get one return run done in a shift.Although to be fair the 8 LXB probably would have been a reasonable improvement on the 180 and with around 700 lb/ft at its disposal must have been better than any of the other NA options in that regard.So as I’ve said I can understand SoM’s choice of putting the 8 LXB in the Big J but not the over looking of the Rolls 280 in that choice. 
As for the Rolls Fodens spot on.I used to use the A 25 going from Godstone to Ewell depot just for the laugh of climbing the the old Reigate Hill with them empty.
We actually had one of our Foden/Gardner 6LXC 8 legger powder tankers hit up the rear by a Scania on one of the long motorway climbs in (I believe?) Kent on its way to Lenham. The Scania driver had rather overestimated the ‘speed’ of the Foden, when the copper came out to sort things out he wanted to know why the tanker was travelling so slowly so our driver chucked him the keys and told him that if he thought it should get up the hill any faster he had better have a go! On the flat they could motor on, our S50 halfcabbed Fodens with 6LXB’s could fly but they had a little ‘doctoring’ which helped!
Pete.
Oh Pete, what have you done…
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Or stopped on the hard shoulder Larry and made the ■■■■ stand outside between the cab and the hopper ! that would have cooled the airasol down a bit before they got back to the depot eh! Cheers Dennis.
Now I often wondered why those Foden salt spreaders had a windscreen wiper fitted to the inside of the n/s screen ! Now we know, it was for CF when he accompanied his old man and he made a noise like a BSA Batam engine, what a ■■■■■■■ mess on that screen 
! Cheers Bewick.
A man of many conflicts, our Geoffrey.
He asserts that a university education is no match for practical experience, then attempts to contradict the actual experiences of real people using engineering theory. He lauds the principle that turbocharged engines will always beat the N/A Gardner, but the 8LXB’s competitors at the time- Scania DS11 and Volvo TD100A- were no more powerful but suffered worse SFC. Those Swedish engines will have been developed by huge teams of graduates, yet Hugh Gardner, if I’m not mistaken, was not a university man. In Geoffrey’s book, the British haulage industry was run by skinflints yet, in actual fact, operators were happy to go on a waiting list to pay extra for the fuel saving and durability of an 8LXB.
The key to all of these contradictions, of course, is that the Gardner engine did not follow the standard practice of the period. A proper engineer, instead of quoting generalisations, would try to work out why the 8LXB was superior to the turbocharged engines of its time, in every significant way.
[zb]
anorak:
A man of many conflicts, our Geoffrey.
He asserts that a university education is no match for practical experience, then attempts to contradict the actual experiences of real people using engineering theory. He lauds the principle that turbocharged engines will always beat the N/A Gardner, but the 8LXB’s competitors at the time- Scania DS11 and Volvo TD100A- were no more powerful but suffered worse SFC. Those Swedish engines will have been developed by huge teams of graduates, yet Hugh Gardner, if I’m not mistaken, was not a university man. In Geoffrey’s book, the British haulage industry was run by skinflints yet, in actual fact, operators were happy to go on a waiting list to pay extra for the fuel saving and durability of an 8LXB.
The key to all of these contradictions, of course, is that the Gardner engine did not follow the standard practice of the period. A proper engineer, instead of quoting generalisations, would try to work out why the 8LXB was superior to the turbocharged engines of its time, in every significant way.
I was using the example of the Swedes as an example of a very real precedent in which they among others were pioneering the equally very real change from NA engines to turbocharged in general mainstream use with obvious customer interest to match.In this case as I’ve said it’s the Rolls 280 which would be the relevant comparison.In which case how is something which can provide the same and more amount of power,at a lower engine speed,from a smaller engine capacity,supposedly not ‘superior’ to the 8 LXB ?.On that note remind us what was the 8 LXB’s SFC figure at 250 hp ? let alone 260 + hp ? oh wait. 
As for the Gardner’s ‘superiority’ as I’ve said that was unarguably reserved for its NA competition like ■■■■■■■ and arguably AEC etc in the day at least in 8 LXB form.That predictably all vanished into thin air ( literally ) when turbocharging took off among the imports and Rolls’ and ■■■■■■■■ products.
Which leaves the question why would anyone have ordered the thing with even 180 Gardner or NA ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ instead of 8 LXB.SoM obviously being less ‘skinflint’ than those customers in this case.While there’s no evidence that the 280 Rolls option would have been any more expensive or less durable than the 8 LXB.But,unless you want to re write all the accepted laws of engineering,which make the BMEP figure,not SFC,king,it would unarguably have been more efficient.Which is why to my knowledge there was never a Gardner engined Marathon and you could have later ordered a turbo Rolls or ■■■■■■■ engined T45 tractor unit/prime mover but not a Gardner engined one.
[zb]
anorak:
A man of many conflicts, our Geoffrey.
He asserts that a university education is no match for practical experience, then attempts to contradict the actual experiences of real people using engineering theory. He lauds the principle that turbocharged engines will always beat the N/A Gardner, but the 8LXB’s competitors at the time- Scania DS11 and Volvo TD100A- were no more powerful but suffered worse SFC. Those Swedish engines will have been developed by huge teams of graduates, yet Hugh Gardner, if I’m not mistaken, was not a university man. In Geoffrey’s book, the British haulage industry was run by skinflints yet, in actual fact, operators were happy to go on a waiting list to pay extra for the fuel saving and durability of an 8LXB.
The key to all of these contradictions, of course, is that the Gardner engine did not follow the standard practice of the period. A proper engineer, instead of quoting generalisations, would try to work out why the 8LXB was superior to the turbocharged engines of its time, in every significant way.
Whilst googling to find out which of the Gardner clan was the Whitworth Scholar (not Hugh, one of his forebears) I dropped on a PhD thesis written about Gardners by a Maurice J. Halton in 2010, University of Bolton. It is in the public domain and might be worth a read, bearing in mind it is written from an academic viewpoint. It concentrates in the main on the period 1955 -86 of the company. it might keep CF out of Bewick’s hair for a day or two.
